W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > October 2008

Re: Editorial comments on "Shared Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People with Disabilities"

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:56:20 +0100
Message-ID: <48F4CF34.1070702@mtld.mobi>
To: "Heath, Geoffrey" <geoffrey.heath@hp.com>
CC: Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>, "wai-eo-editors@w3.org" <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>, public-bpwg <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Yes, sure, I meant that "in the worst case" the user may have to 
navigate elements serially and in document order. However your 
suggestion is simpler and is fine by me.

thanks
Jo

On 14/10/2008 16:15, Heath, Geoffrey wrote:
> Yes that is very true. Good catch Jo!
> 
> But.. With "in document order"... If a device supports X-Y position element sensing, then that last little part isn't true.
> 
> ---------------
> Example: Element 1 starts in Focus
> 
> [Element 1] [Element 2] [Element 3]
> [Element 4]
> 
> 
> A. [Position Sensing] If I hit down on my rocker pad, I would go to the element BELOW what I was focused on.. So I would be at "element 4".
> 
> B. [Non position sensing] If I hit down on my rocker pad, I would go to the "next element" in document order which would be "element 2".
> 
> -------------------
> 
> My suggestion: "mobile devices may not have a pointing device so the user may have to
> navigate elements serially"
> 
> 
> _________________________
> Geoff Heath
> Hewlett-Packard
> Sr. Information Architect
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:09 AM
> To: Heath, Geoffrey
> Cc: Yeliz Yesilada; wai-eo-editors@w3.org; public-bpwg
> Subject: Re: Editorial comments on "Shared Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People with Disabilities"
> 
> Hi
> 
> Sorry to continue what I think is a very small point, but I am not clear
> what "tab navigation" means other than using the tab key to navigate.
> Since a lot of mobile devices don't have a tab key that doesn't really
> work. Perhaps the following works:
> 
> mobile devices may not have a pointing device so the user may have to
> navigate elements serially in document order.
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> On 14/10/2008 15:01, Heath, Geoffrey wrote:
>> That definition sounds good to me.
>>
>> "mobile devices may not have
>> a pointing device so user can use tab navigation to move from one
>> element to another"
>>
>> I think that's great.
>>
>> _________________________
>> Geoff Heath
>> Hewlett-Packard
>> Sr. Information Architect
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yeliz Yesilada [mailto:yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:57 AM
>> To: Jo Rabin
>> Cc: Heath, Geoffrey; wai-eo-editors@w3.org; public-bpwg
>> Subject: Re: Editorial comments on "Shared Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People with Disabilities"
>>
>> I think if we are having this discussion here that means my
>> definition is not good :) I personally want to keep them as short as
>> possible as the other W3C documents explain the stated problems in
>> detail. I will change the definition to "mobile devices may not have
>> a pointing device so user can use tab navigation to move from one
>> element to another".
>>
>> Jo, Geoff, will it be OK for you if I change the definition to this?
>>
>> Yeliz.
>>
>> On 14 Oct 2008, at 05:45, Jo Rabin wrote:
>>
>>> Geoff - thanks, I think that the devices are characterised by what
>>> they don't have rather than what they do have. I'm not clear that
>>> using a touch screen involves tab navigation so I would prefer to
>>> stay with "may not have a pointing device".
>>>
>>> Jo
>>>
>>> On 13/10/2008 22:25, Heath, Geoffrey wrote:
>>>> Jo and Yeliz,
>>>> In regards to the previous statements below:
>>>>>> Sorry if this seems a bit picky, or unduly politically correct, but
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mobile Context: Pointing device not present or inadequate."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that saying "inadequate" opens a number of questions which
>>>>>> we don't want to go into here, so maybe we can just say "There may
>>>>>> be no pointing device"
>>>>         > I understand your point. What about changing Mobile
>>>> context to "
>>>>         > Device has no mouse, only alphanumeric keypad or
>>>> joystick so user can
>>>>         > use tab navigation to move from one element to another".
>>>> Do you think
>>>>         > this will solve the ambiguity in the definition?
>>>> I think the Mobile Context definition needs to be thought of in a
>>>> broader scope, because the navigation paradigms are ever-changing.
>>>> Issues I see with the proposed definitions above.
>>>> - I don't know of a mobile device that utilizes a mouse.
>>>> - Touch / Multi-touch screen interfaces are not addressed.. There
>>>> is no "mouse or stylus", but the device still allows for "non tab
>>>> navigation of content".
>>>> - What about devices that utilize a rollerball [blackberry
>>>> style].. This is not addressed.
>>>> - What about devices that utilize multi-soft key only? [2-3
>>>> softkeys].
>>>> - What about devices that utilze a touchpad?
>>>> - Is joystick a synanomous term with rockerpad? What is the
>>>> current industry definition/name for that hardware element?
>>>> I believe the broader the scope of the definition, the less
>>>> "detailed nuances" you will have troubles with, and the longer the
>>>> document can remain effective. Device navigation paradigms are
>>>> constantly changing and evolving.
>>>> I would propose sticking with something even more generic and simple:
>>>> "Mobile Context: Tab Navigation to move from one element to
>>>> another"..
>>>> There is no amgiguity in the definition... Tab navigation is being
>>>> used, regardless of device capabilities/paradigm. Yet, it doesn't
>>>> involve the intimate details of attaching every type of device
>>>> navigation paradigm to the definition. Clean, simple, and more
>>>> "timeless".
>>>> My thoughts.
>>>> _________________________
>>>> Geoff Heath
>>>> Hewlett-Packard
>>>> Sr. Information Architect
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-
>>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yeliz Yesilada
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 2:02 PM
>>>> To: Jo Rabin
>>>> Cc: wai-eo-editors@w3.org; public-bpwg
>>>> Subject: Re: Editorial comments on "Shared Web Experiences:
>>>> Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People with Disabilities"
>>>> Hi Jo,
>>>> Thanks for your comments.
>>>> On 13 Oct 2008, at 10:13, Jo Rabin wrote:
>>>>>>> Under Focus (tab) order - I think the mobile section sort of
>>>>> implies that navigation is via tab key, which it isn't, but in any
>>>>> case it may be worth mentioning that it's hard to navigate with the
>>>>> common 4-way rocker.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me know what you think about the latest version of the
>>>>> description, I tried not to talk about any specific technology here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry if this seems a bit picky, or unduly politically correct, but
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mobile Context: Pointing device not present or inadequate."
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that saying "inadequate" opens a number of questions which
>>>>> we don't want to go into here, so maybe we can just say "There may
>>>>> be no pointing device"
>>>> I understand your point. What about changing Mobile context to "
>>>> Device has no mouse, only alphanumeric keypad or joystick so user can
>>>> use tab navigation to move from one element to another". Do you think
>>>> this will solve the ambiguity in the definition?
>>>>>> Changed the description to "Some older mobile browsers do not
>>>>> display content with invalid markup. Additionally, content
>>>>> adaptation for mobile device agents is unpredictable and possibly
>>>>> incomplete if the page markup is invalid."
>>>>>
>>>>> I really think the second sentence (Additionally ...) asks more
>>>>> questions than it answers so it would be better if it was removed.
>>>> OK, I will remove that.
>>>> Please let me know what you think about the suggested change above so
>>>> that I can quickly change the document.
>>>> Yeliz.
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 17:11:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:59 UTC